I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Kitzmiller decision violated Federal Rules of Evidence

Casey Luskin said,

During the Dover trial, plaintiffs’ expert witness, biologist Kenneth Miller, testified that he presented Judge John E. Jones with “more than three dozen scientific studies showing the origin of new genetic information by these evolutionary processes.” The plaintiffs’ attorneys, working with the NCSE, successfully convinced Judge Jones to parrot Miller by stating in the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling that Miller had “pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes.”

Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 803(18) says,

Learned treatises: To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross-examination or relied upon by the expert witness in direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits. (emphasis added)

The above publications presented by Ken Miller were apparently "received as exhibits" instead of being "read into evidence," in violation of the above FRE rule (what Miller did is sometimes called "bibiliography bluffing"). This rule was also violated when a stack of publications was dumped in front of defendants' expert witness Michael Behe.

The scientific questions in the case should have simply been declared to be "non-justiciable." A question is considered to be non-justiciable when there is a "lack of discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the question" (Vieth v. Jubelirer).

Labels: ,


Anonymous C. A. Arthur said...

Your side lost the Kitzmiller case. Get over it.

Sunday, February 14, 2010 7:45:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

You Darwinists "won" the Kitzmiller case, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Get over it.

Friday, February 19, 2010 2:47:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

BTW, bozo, what in the hell is "get over it" supposed to mean, anyway? Does it mean that we should not criticize the decision?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Saturday, February 20, 2010 12:29:00 PM  
Blogger Benyomin Aaron Patzik said...

Oh yeah, like I'm supposed to be so naive as to believe that Judges are infallible? Didn't our same Judicial system let O.J. Simpson off the hook when there was hard evidence, like the victims blood all over his car, that made OJ's guilt obvious to all but the judge eto??!

Thursday, March 18, 2010 11:12:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home